Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (88183)	11/8/2004 9:03:09 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

(Hat tip to Oral Roberts) Thursday, November 04, 2004 We Democrats are supposedly the party of the therapists, the teachers, and the 'relationship experts.' If anybody would be proud of the title, 'active listener', it would be a Democrat. We're the soft ones who understand where the other side is coming from and negotiate. Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more." Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die." "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made. And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right? Here are some arguments that are being made that the Democratic party has simply not responded to, in the larger sense of the word "response": Whatever the UN was, might have been, or should be, it now isn't. Genocidal tyrannies are on the Human Rights commision. Saddam Hussein funneled over 1.7 billion dollars to various decision makers and world leaders to weaken his sanctions program. One out of every three votes is about Israel. Until the UN is significantly reformed, you shouldn't take its decisions seriously. If we view 1000 or even 10,000 dead soldiers as unacceptable, we will never be able to fight a real war again. Proportional response with no preemption allows the other side to set the pace of the battle. Throughout history, governments have had a strong interest in promoting long-term child-rearing heterosexual relationships. That is why governments create a legal definition of Marriage and provide lots of benefits to heterosexual couples who enter into it. This has been true for States throughout history independent of the religious beliefs of the populace. Worrying about changing that definition, even to the point of deciding against a change, is not automatically sexism or bigotry. If you never are willing to draw a line where human life starts, there will be no line. Just because it says something in the Bible doesn't mean there are no ancillary arguments supporting it. And just because someone uses the Bible as a source of their morality doesn't mean that any particular view of theirs is wrong. Actually, stuff that's lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book. I am not saying that all these arguments should win. But I do not hear enough Democrats elucidating reasoned counterarguments to these positions. "Bush insulted our allies and the UN," "Bush lied, people died," "We have become the aggressor," "Homophobia," "Religious nut." These are not responses, these are dismissals. When Democrats start actively responding, we will succeed. Until then, we will be increasingly ignored as irrelevent. backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com

To: E who wrote (88183)	11/8/2004 7:40:25 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

"I don't recall you believing that a fertilized egg was a "baby," as opposed to a blueprint for a person, and I've argued the point frequently enough on SI so that I'll just tell you that my usual responses are to point out that the word "potential" has a meaning: a blueprint isn't a house, a scrambled egg isn't a roast chicken, a fertilized cell, or a cluster of undifferentiated cells, have to do more than "grow" to become a baby. They have to change in kind to become one." A fertilized egg is not just a potential baby. It is a baby at the beginning of its development. It will become a baby if it grows. Your logic is a little illogical to me somehow. For a blueprint to become a house, a whole lot of people have to gather materials and do construction. A scrambled egg is not a roast chicken, but a fertilized chicken egg would would become a plain old live chicken if no one scrambled it. So you are comparing unlike processes. All that stuff about the snuff films the religious right has about fetuses being aborted in obvious distress, agony and squirming to get away are true. I actually think every woman should be required to watch such a film and receive psychological counseling, at least briefly, before she has such a procedure. Women grieve over the loss of a fetus of any gestation, if they realize they are pregnant and do want the baby. They have the same loss, the loss of a baby and all its joy and promise, regardless of how developed the fetus is.